Quaker Resistance to War Tax Stamps

I’ve been hoping to get to the bottom of the mystery of how American Quaker
war tax resistance went into a tailspin at some point after the American Civil
War. I still don’t have an answer, but here’s another clue, and one that
shows that at least as late as 1901 some Quakers
were still very concerned about not paying war taxes. This comes from the
Friends’ Intelligencer for
26 January 1901:

A Friend who recently called at the office of the West Grove
(Pa.)
Independent said to the editor that he tries to
avoid sending a check in payment of a bill, as this requires a stamp (war
tax), holding the belief that he becomes a party to the iniquity of war by
using the stamp.

This stamp tax was one of a number of war taxes instituted to pay for the
Spanish-American War. Quakers also got caught by some of these other war
taxes, particularly the estate tax, which some embarrassed Meetings found
themselves reporting when Friends died and left their estates to the Meeting.

Over the course of several issues in 1862 and
1863, the Friends’
Review published excerpts from the journals of David Cooper, parts of
which concerned Quaker war tax resistance during and after the American
Revolution:

At the Yearly Meeting, in the fall of 1777,
under a sense of the judgments now in our land, and the many deviations from
the simplicity and purity of our profession, into which we, as a people, had
slidden, and thereby as justly perhaps as any other of the inhabitants,
provoked the Almighty to inflict this scourge; Friends became deeply
exercised that under this humbling dispensation a reformation might take
place. For this purpose, a recommendation was sent to Quarterly and Monthly
Meetings, to appoint committees; which was done in our Quarter, and they
attended Conferences at the several meetings. A select number visited the
ministers, elders, and overseers, and some time after the families of Friends
generally. In the service I assisted. It was a humbling, laborious season,
and the desired effect, it may be sorrowfully said, has too little appeared:
too few of us being sufficiently careful to confirm by example what we
recommend in words.
A sense of this brought diverse things more closely into consideration,
whereby they appeared to me different from what they had heretofore, as
respecting dress, Congress money, our peaceable testimony,
etc. To bear this
testimony faithfully, I clearly saw that I could do nothing which manifestly
aided or abetted those who were actually engaged in war, which those who pay
taxes directly raised for the purpose of supporting soldiery, do in an
essential manner. For this reason, I have paid no tax for war during all
these commotions, nor received a penny of their money for bedding, clothing,
provisions, hay, grain,
etc., which they
have taken from me, offering money or orders therefor; nor have I
sold to their commissioners anything I had. Nor was I free to receive, out of
a forfeited estate, a large debt which was due to me, as I considered the
selling of those estates, for the most part, cruel and unchristian. I also
found a restraint from having anything more to do with continental
currency, which had become a vehicle of such public mischief, that few
could touch it without suffering thereby, or causing others to suffer. This
was a pinching trial. My interest was likely to be greatly affected. I stood
wholly alone among my friends, and expected censure from them, for I had been
an advocate for a contrary conduct in both cases. I also saw how feeble
precept is, unless strengthened by example, and being sometimes engaged to
enjoin simplicity, and to recommend others to confine themselves to things
necessary and useful, I found it obligatory to set an example in these
respects. In the alterations into which I was thus led, I felt the reasoning
and struggling of nature harder to overcome, than ever I had in greater
matters; therefore, whoever may read this, beware that you account nothing to
be a little thing, which the light within you shows you ought to deny
yourself of.

In the First month, 1782, I had appointed to
join Mark Reeve in visiting meetings in the counties of Philadelphia and
Bucks; but a few days before the time of starting, my horse, which would
readily have brought forty pounds, was taken by a constable for a tax of
about four pounds. Thus I seemed prevented, but Mark was earnest to have my
company; I therefore purposed to borrow a beast and to meet him on Fifth-day
in Philadelphia, where he was to attend Monthly Meeting. A severe storm
prevented my obtaining one, and I relinquished the thought of going; but on
Fourth-day evening a neighbor’s lad brought my horse home. As he could give
no account upon what terms he was returned, I hesitated about receiving him
lest I might subject myself to be charged with double dealing. On weighing
the matter, however, I felt easy to take him…

[The Rhode Island] Yearly Meeting was sitting…. By a previous rule, such who
paid any tax wholly for the support of war, should be dealt with as
offenders, but Friends were allowed to pay mixed taxes, a part whereof was
for civil purposes and part for war, nor were the sufferings of those who
declined to pay these taxes received or recorded. This subject now occasioned
much debate, which resulted in a minute directing such sufferings to be
recorded as their testimony against war.

The committee on Sufferings, appointed in third
month, 1785, had in the ninth month
reported that the statement of sufferings sent from Evesham should in their
judgment not be sent forward, but remain with the Quarterly Meeting’s papers,
as being so clear and explicit as to answer the direction of the Yearly
Meeting. This report was confirmed. In the eleventh
month the standing committee reported that statements of sufferings
unmixed and wholly for declining the payment of war taxes, ought to remain
among the papers of the Monthly Meeting, and go no further. This report was
objected to, and a minute was made suspending a final decision upon it, till
the sense of the Yearly Meeting could be obtained. In
the third month of this year it was moved to
appoint a committee to aid the clerk in framing a minute for the Yearly
Meeting; the necessity of which in so plain a case caused a little debate.
Ten Friends were, however, appointed, in which number I was included, and we
met on seventh-day preceding the Quarterly Meeting at Salem at this time,
when the object of the appointment appeared very obvious, from the means
employed to prevent the matter being sent forward. The effort failed,
however, and our statement of the subject being laid before the Quarterly
Meeting was approved, and the clerk directed to send it to next Yearly
Meeting. Thus it stands at present. This matter appeared rather marvelous to
me, when I consider the very small number in this large Quarterly Meeting who
suffer on this account, and the great opposition that has constantly been
shown, and endeavors even in a Quarterly Meeting capacity, to deny such
distraints as being sufferings for our peaceable testimony. Whether, under
the very great falling away from this scruple that we have seen of late, any
advantage will arise from sending it up at this time, remains to be seen.
Could the directions of the Yearly Meeting have been simply complied with, it
would have been abundantly my choice, in preference to sending up this
question.

These New England Friends were truly exemplary in their conduct and
conversation. They declined using West India produce, as coming through the
channel of slavery. Joseph Mitchell had other scruples which did not feel to
me of equal weight. He avoided going to the houses or partaking with those
who imported or retailed such produce; he also avoided wearing silver and the
use of silver utensils…. At our Yearly Meeting in
the Ninth month, were John Storer, from Old
England; Job Scott, from New England; Daniel Haviland, Edward Halleck, and
Tideman Hull, from York Government. The question sent from our Quarter,
respecting war taxes, was referred to a committee of thirty-six Friends,
including three, who, in our Quarterly Meeting, had opposed the sending
forward of sufferings on that account. This committee reported their
unanimous sense that an account of such sufferings ought to be kept and sent
up as other sufferings are. This report was confirmed without one word of
opposition. John Storer informed the meeting that he had attended each of the
sittings of the committee, and was sensible that Divine good attended their
deliberations. Thus the clear, full, united sense of the body is given,
owning those sufferings to be for the testimony of truth; which, I trust,
occasioned in many minds reverent thankfulness to the Master of our
assemblies, and tended to strengthen and encourage to faithfulness in
suffering for his cause and truth. For, indeed, that this matter should be so
calmly and unitedly resulted, appeared marvelous in the eyes of some of us.

At the end of this last excerpt, the editor of the Friends’
Review added: “This question of taxes appears to have elicited much
discussion, which was carried on with warmth, and, on one side at least, with
no little sophistry, evidence of which is contained in letters now laying
before us. Our Lord’s miracle, providing for the payment of tribute, was much
harped upon.”

The Review also printed the text of a letter to
Cooper from his nephew, Joseph Whitall:

I read with singular satisfaction the piece which you lent me respecting
taxes, as it was very strengthening to my mind, which before was somewhat
encompassed with weakness on this account. Whenever the matter came before
me, it appeared very plain that it would be an inconsistency for Friends to
pay this tax. But what weighed in my mind was this: Whether I as an
individual had so known the truth and a stability in it, as to lay myself
open to suffering by refusing to pay; believing that unless the building is
laid on this foundation the storms will overthrow it. The evening after you
first mentioned the subject to me, as I returned home, the matter was brought
into more close consideration than I had known it, apprehensive that the time
of trial was not afar off. Several discouragements at that time presented; my
situation as being entirely dependent on my father and having no property of
my own, I must either consent to his paying it or submit to go to prison; as
also the thought of what elder Friends, who did not refuse, would judge of me
for so doing. In this situation, I was engaged to feel after resignation and
quietude of mind, which I was favored in some measure to experience,
believing that if I should be so required, I should be strengthened to bear
up under it. After I had returned home, and sat awhile in retirement with (I
believe I may say) a single desire to be rightly guided in this weighty
matter, several Scripture texts were presented to view, and the thing
appeared so plain to me, I had then to believe that if I ever consented to
the payment of such a tax, I should be condemned by the Light which maketh
manifest: and my confidence was greatly strengthened in the holy Arm of
Power, which made and sustains all things. But I have since felt much
weakness, and had come to no solid conclusion of mind, until I read your
little manuscript, which caused my heart to rejoice, under a feeling sense
that it is the truth which leads those who walk and abide in it to hold forth
this testimony unto the world. And oh, says my soul, that I may yield
faithful obedience to its monitions, let what will be the consequence. Soon
after I had read the piece, my father came home, when I asked how the present
tax was to be appropriated; and being told that none of it relates to war, I
was glad notwithstanding that I had felt such a settlement of mind.

Anna Aschenbach, who had been a “simple living” war tax resister for many years (her anti-war activism went back to the second World War), died last weekend. She suffered a stroke at the ceremony at which she was being awarded the Dr. Alice Hamilton Peace and Freedom Award from the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

On this date in 1804…

The [Woodstown Meeting] committee on suffering cases reported the amount of
fines against eight Friends to be 4 pounds, 9 shillings, and 4 pence, and the
amount of property taken from them to make that sum was 31 pounds, 16
shillings, 6 pence. These fines were for non-attendance at muster on training
day; in regard to which Friends of that day were concerned to bear a faithful
testimony, neither could they consistently pay the fines. A few years later a
law was enacted exempting from military duty in time of peace all members of
fire engine companies. Many Friends availed themselves of this law and
enrolled themselves as members of such associations, by this means avoiding
military service and relieving themselves from needless extortions.

Find Out More!

For more information on the topic or topics below (organized as “topic →
subtopic →
sub-subtopic”), click on any of the ♦ symbols to see other pages on this site that cover the topic. Or browse the site’s topic index at the “Outline” page.